Abstract
The introductory chapter looks into the key concepts—refugees, citizenship and belonging in South Asia. The question of accommodating refugees within the paradigm of citizenship rights has puzzled many scholars. Citizenship is a contentious issue and has much more significance when an individual crosses an international border. After entering an alien territory, refugees have no rights other than those to which they are entitled under international law, more specifically stipulated under international refugee law. The identities of refugees are enmeshed with nationality. Along with the question of statehood, citizenship becomes a vital issue that both shapes and governs a state’s recognition of the distinctive identity of refugees. Citizenship, is a tool used to exclude those who seek to participate and who need recognition within the statist framework.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsNotes
- 1.
The concept of homeland has been viewed differently by refugees and rebel groups involved in the separatist movement to attain autonomy. In this chapter, I assert that refugees view homeland as an extension of their idea of home. In Chap. 6, where I discuss negotiations of inclusion, I distinguish between rebel groups’ view of homeland and that of refugee groups.
- 2.
In 1971, the state of Bangladesh was created after East Pakistan seceded from West Pakistan.
- 3.
The 1948 Constitution of Sri Lanka provided adequate provisions to counterbalance any attempt of the dominant group (Sinhalese) to seize power. However, the protective mechanisms were gradually diluted in the subsequent Constitutions of 1972 and 1978, which consolidated the dominance of the majority group, as well as concentrating executive power in the hands of the President.
- 4.
In Sri Lanka, the unitary state attempted to create a unified Sinhala identity by imposing the Sinhala language as the national language and Buddhism as the national religion. Thus, overt majoritarianism became apparent when the government in Sri Lanka institutionalized the ‘Sinhala Only’ policy, which predates constitutional change.
- 5.
The Ceylon Tamils enjoyed certain traditional rights under the communal method of representation provided for in pre-1931 colonial legislature. Moreover, universal adult suffrage granted under Britain in 1931 provided a partial self-governing system of constitutional reforms. However, under the Donoughmore Constitution of 1931, the communal means of representation was changed to territorial. This change did not affect the Ceylon Tamils because they were safeguarded by constitutional protection that prevented any discriminatory legislation, and also the governor had a reserve of powers, including the right of disallowance. Later, the Soulbury Constitution of 1947 completed the process of vesting complete autonomy to conservative leadership. The Reform Commission provided a compromise on the distribution of seats among the Sinhala majority and the ethnic minority; the Ceylon Tamils demanded a 50–50 representative split of seats between the Sinhala and the combined ethnic minorities. In 1957, the Bandaranaike-Chelvanayakam Pact (B-C) was an agreement between Sri Lankan Prime Minister S.W.R.D. Bandaranaike (SLFP) and the leader of the Tamil Federal Party (FP), S. Chelvanayakam, who made several important proposals on devolution and the Tamil language question. Provisions were put forward for the formation of directly elected Regional Councils, which would have jurisdiction over such areas as colonization, agriculture, land and education. Also, Tamils were promised that due recognition would be given to the Tamil language. Bandaranaike tried to offset the rigour of the ‘Sinhala Only’ policy with concessions such as the Tamil Language (Special Provisions) Act, which was enacted in 1958. The B-C pact fell short of any demand for a federal constitution or regional autonomy, or to abrogate the ‘Sinhala Only’ option. Moreover, the B-C pact was largely unimplemented. The Pact of March 1965 between Senanayake-Chelvanayakam essentially reproduced the earlier 1957 pact with some modifications. This Pact promised to take action under the Tamil Language Special Provisions Act to make Tamil the language of administration and of record in the northern and eastern provinces. Another landmark was the provision on amending the Land Development Ordinance in order to allot land to the Ceylon Tamils. Also, provisions were made to make land in the north and eastern provinces available to landless persons in the district.
- 6.
I follow the international refugee regime definition of repatriation, which will be discussed in the next chapter.
- 7.
See Hartling 1979, 129, Text of the Statute: Annex to the UN doc. A/Res/428 (V) (1950). The text of the 1951 Convention: 189 UNTS 137 entered into force on 22 April 1954. As of 1 August 1996, the convention has been ratified by 127 states. It should be noted that the two instruments are of a different legal status—a General Assembly (GA) resolution establishing the terms of the mandate of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and a treaty—although some experts argue that the Statute is in substance a treaty on account of being an implementation of the UN Charter by the GA and therefore binding for all state members of the United Nations, Grahl-Madsen, 1966 at 32 (where the reference is made to the Statute as ‘an international convention adopted by delegated authority’). The adoption of the Statute by the GA constitutes a decision of the Assembly on the basis of Art. 22 UN Charter, which is in virtue of its being a decision internal to the organization; that is, concerned with the internal working of the organization, hence, binding to its member states.
- 8.
The Tibetans entered India as a result of military persecution by Communist China in the 1950s. The Tibetan struggle for autonomy began in the mid-50s and led to a large number of refugees fleeing to India. In the 50s, the Dalai Lama arrived in India with nearly a hundred thousand Tibetan refugees from Tibet. The Government of India was immediately able to accommodate them by offering ‘300 bamboo huts, food, clothing and medical care’. In Misamari, there were nearly 15,000 Tibetans between May and June 1959; some of these refugees were allowed to settle in colder regions of India, like Sikkim (nearly 4,000 settled there). Unlike other refugees in India, the Tibetan refugees were allowed to enrol in schools. Some of these refugee families have been living in India for a long time now, and they seem unlikely to return to their country of origin. The Tibetan refugees have been granted certificates of identity, which enables them to engage in gainful employment, economic activities and even travel abroad and return to India.
- 9.
The Afghans have sought refuge in India since 1978 after the Soviets invaded Afghanistan. Thereafter, the Afghan refugee inflow to India increased as a result of internal changes in Afghanistan, especially after the withdrawal of the Soviets (as a result of Geneva talks) and the Taliban’s capture of power soon thereafter.
- 10.
The Lhotshampas are originally the Bhutanese of Nepali origin. In 1990, the Lhotshampas constituted 39 percent of educated citizens in Bhutan. In 1985, Bhutanese Citizenship laws defined citizenship more rigidly, thus threatening to disfranchize the Lhotshampas community. An intense rivalry led to the exodus to Nepal and India. Around 90,000 are presently residing in camps in Nepal and 30,000 in India.
- 11.
I make a distinction between integration in the post-repatriation context and the pre-repatriation context and define it as an important criterion to ascertain the success of repatriation. Integration occurs when a group that has been repatriated is successfully accommodated by the country of origin.
- 12.
Most officials belong to the Prime Minister’s Office in Sri Lanka, the Ministry of CHT in Bangladesh, local government in Khagracharri, local officials involved in management and later repatriation of refugees in Tamil Nadu and Tripura, as well as official involvement in camps such as the local administration in various camps in Tamil Nadu and Tripura.
- 13.
The northeastern part of Sri Lanka has often been termed as the ‘original habitation’ of the Tamil people. The concept assumed political significance as a result of Thimphu principles in 1985 (I discuss this aspect in detail in Chap. 4).
- 14.
Data collected from the camp-in-charge in Vavuniya in June 2002 showed that the Poonthoddam Unit 2 comprised 171 families, consisting of 710 members. The camp profile clearly indicated the exact location of the displacement of refugee families. The camp was populated by families from Jaffna (17 families; 82 members), Killinochchi (76 families; 325 members), Mullaitivu (68 families; 279 members), Vavuniya [uncleared territory] (9 families; 18 members), and Vavuniya [cleared territory] (1 family; 6 members). Since 1996, most people were allowed to enter the Vavuniya cleared area via Thandikulam.
- 15.
The Poonthoddam Welfare Centre 8 had a total of nine units that accommodated nearly 222 families of 847 members.
- 16.
The Sithamparapuram Welfare Camp 1 housed nearly 600 families.
- 17.
Organization for Eelam Refugees’ Rehabilitation (OfERR) works for the Sri Lankan Tamil refugees in Tamil Nadu, India.
- 18.
The various camps in Thiruvannamalai were the Abullapuram camp, Gumudpundi camp, Adi-Annamalai camp, Kondam camp, Thepellipatta camp, Aryapadi camp, Vellapada camps I and II and the Elathur camp located in the district of Thiruvannamalai, Tamil Nadu.
- 19.
Chimni (2000) argues that the sole premise of claiming refugee status should not be based on objective criteria alone because fear is a subjective emotion, which must essentially be ascertained through objective means and methods. The Convention’s mandate protects those whose ‘civil and political rights’ are violated and who were forced to flee their country of origin. However, this protection leaves refugees’ sociopolitical rights at risk. Also, the official status extends to persons who have been disenfranchized on the basis of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion. Thus, on the one hand, the definitional limitation continues to be a cause for concern for various scholars, but the Convention’s importance still remains the same.
- 20.
The globalized literature on citizenship views claims of non-citizen’s rights differently. Sassen tends to hold a different meaning on de-nationalization of rights, which emphasizes the evolution of ‘national-state’ in addressing the rights of non-citizens, whereas Soysal discusses the concept of postnational citizenship in relation to non-citizen rights in European Union. I address different aspects of these arguments in Chap. 2 of the book.
- 21.
The case of the Sri Lankan Tamils in Southern India (Tamil Nadu) provides a typical example. In this case, the Tamils of Tamil Nadu were instrumental in exercising considerable pressure on Indian foreign policy on the question of ethnic conflict in Sri Lanka. The Tamil Nadu government found a common cause in politicized ethnicity, which reinforced the Tamil refugees’ identity. Also, the historically shared ethnicity between Tamil Nadu and Sri Lanka was partially responsible for resolving the issue of the citizenship of the Estate Tamils.
- 22.
This was asserted by various Tamil returnee-refugees in Vavuniya, Sri Lanka and Tamil refugees residing in camps in Tamil Nadu. Interviews were conducted in camps in Thiruvannamalai and Vavuniya in June–July 2002.
- 23.
The state can provide recognition to refugee groups to prevent the infringement of their basic human and fundamental rights. However, such recognition is backed by legal status as per the rule of citizenship. I argue that refugees seek status (not necessarily legal status), but as stipulated in the International Refugee Regime.
- 24.
In a study of Hutu refugees in Western Tanzania, Malkki discusses how displacement generated a new meaning to sovereignty and how ‘people are chronically mobile and routinely displaced, and invent homes and homelands in the absence of territorial, national bases—not in situ, but through memories of, and claims on places that they can or will no longer corporeally inhabit’.
- 25.
The camp represented the locus of hierarchical, asymmetrical power in which the overwhelming numerical majority of inhabitants—the refugees—were subjected to the authority of a small number of camp administrators, which only reinforced the refugees’ desire to return home. The camp provided opportunities to mobilize and rally around the notion of oneness based on the nation/state homeland; this also motivated returnees to reclaim their lost identity and nationality in Sri Lanka.
- 26.
This observation is based on data collected during field work in June 2002 in the following camps: the Abullapuram camp, Gumudpundi camp, Adi-Annamalai camp, Kondam camp, Thepellipatta camp, Aryapadi camp, Vellapada camps I and II, and the Elathur camp located in the district of Thiruvannamalai, Tamil Nadu. During various interviews, refugees living in these camps indicated that when conflict ends in their country of origin, they would like to return home. To these refugees, the period of exile in India was temporary, and ‘compromises were necessary to survive in a foreign country’.
- 27.
These interviewees (Satya, Aryamala, Viyajakumari, etc.) lived in different camps located in the district of Thiruvannamalai. During these interviews, they agreed that repatriation was the only solution available to them to improve their situation. Interviews were conducted during 1–5 July 2002.
References
Appadurai, A. (1991). Global ethnoscapes: Notes and queries for a transnational anthropology. In R. Fox (Ed.), Interventions: Anthropologies of the present (pp. 191–210). Santa Fe: School of American Research.
Arendt, H. (1962). Origins of totatilarianism. New York: Meridian Books.
Benhabib, S. (2004). The rights of others: Aliens, residents and citizens. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bosniak, L. (2000). Citizenship denationalized (the state of citizenship symposium). Indiana Journal of Global Legal Studies, 7(2), 447–508.
Chimni, B. (Ed.). (2000). International refugee law: A reader. New Delhi: Sage.
Chung, E. A. (2017). Citizenship in non-western contexts. In A. Shachar, R. Baubock, I. Blomemraad, & M. Vink (Eds.), The oxford handbook of citizenship. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Gupta, A., & Ferguson, J. (1992). Beyond ‘culture’: Space, identity, and the politics of difference. Cultural Anthropology, 7(1), 6–23.
Hamza, A., & Harriss, J. (Eds.). (1989). South Asia. Basingstoke: Macmillan Education Press.
Lori, N. A. (2017). Statelessness ‘in-between’ statuses, and precarious citizenship. In A. Shachar, R. Baubock, I. Blomemraad, & M. Vink (Eds.), Oxford handbook of citizenship (pp. 743–767). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Malkki, L. (1992). National geographic: The rooting of peoples and the territorialization of national identity among scholars and refugees. Cultural Anthropology, 7(1), 24–44.
Malkki, L. (1995). Purity and exile: Violence, memory and national cosmology among Hutu refugees in Tanzania. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Ranger, T. (1994). Studying repatriation as a part of African social history. In T. Allen & H. Morsink (Eds.), When refugees go home. Geneva: UNRISD.
Rounaq, J. (Ed.). (1972). Pakistan: Failure in national integration. New York: Columbia University Press.
Sassen, S. (1994). Cities in a world economy. Thousand Oaks: Pine Forge Press.
Sassen, S. (1999). Guest and aliens. New York: The New Press.
Scott, J. (1999). Seeing like a state: How certain schemes to improve the human condition have failed. New Haven, CN: Yale University Press.
Shachar, A., Bauboeck, R., Bloemraad, I., & Vink, M. (Eds.). (2017). The oxford handbook of citizenship. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Soguk, N. (1999). States and strangers: Refugees and displacements of statecraft. Minnesota: University of Minnesota Press.
Soysal, Y. N. (1994). Limits of citizenship: Migrants and posnationalist membership in Europe. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Stepputat, F. (1994). Repatriation and the politics of space: The case of the Mayan diaspora and return movement. Journal of Refugee Studies, 7(2&3), 175–185.
Tilly, C. (Ed.). (1996). Citizenship, identity and social history. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2018 Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Chowdhory, N. (2018). Introduction. In: Refugees, Citizenship and Belonging in South Asia. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-0197-1_1
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-0197-1_1
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Singapore
Print ISBN: 978-981-13-0196-4
Online ISBN: 978-981-13-0197-1
eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)